″...but if I am wrong about WMDs, then I agree that the war is unjust.”
Under the assumption that existence of WMDs justifies the war, the war was justified if the decision-makers believed that WMDs probably existed, as a result of a honest attempt to discern the truth. Whether WMDs actually existed is wholly irrelevant, except as evidence about state of knowledge of the decision-makers at the time.
(The decision to pull out of the war based on new evidence is a separate question, since situation is different.)
Except then you’d be right demanding they state something like “You were right, the war was unjustified; perhaps we need better monitoring of our leaders. My current stance is that the war should be continued for reasons X.”
There are smart people who held consistent pro-war opinions, granted—personally I’m trying not to take a stance on the war itself, in this situation—but the majority are chock full of cognitive dissonance.
There are certainly many problems associated with any heated debate. I only addressed one point (so your reply is not to me; at least, I didn’t understand a single point you made in it, so perhaps something in there was intended to be on the point I addressed).
This is why I need to write a proper article about this. My first post was only a short hand sketch, which now leaves me feeling like the reverse-Homer Simpson (“Sorry if it SOUNDED sarcastic).”
(As an out-of-context remark.)
Under the assumption that existence of WMDs justifies the war, the war was justified if the decision-makers believed that WMDs probably existed, as a result of a honest attempt to discern the truth. Whether WMDs actually existed is wholly irrelevant, except as evidence about state of knowledge of the decision-makers at the time.
(The decision to pull out of the war based on new evidence is a separate question, since situation is different.)
Except then you’d be right demanding they state something like “You were right, the war was unjustified; perhaps we need better monitoring of our leaders. My current stance is that the war should be continued for reasons X.”
There are smart people who held consistent pro-war opinions, granted—personally I’m trying not to take a stance on the war itself, in this situation—but the majority are chock full of cognitive dissonance.
There are certainly many problems associated with any heated debate. I only addressed one point (so your reply is not to me; at least, I didn’t understand a single point you made in it, so perhaps something in there was intended to be on the point I addressed).
This is why I need to write a proper article about this. My first post was only a short hand sketch, which now leaves me feeling like the reverse-Homer Simpson (“Sorry if it SOUNDED sarcastic).”
:)